FACTS:
Alvarado and Corpuz were tenants of Lorenzo Barredo. In May
1988, Barredo decided to sell his property to the tenants. Due to economic
difficulties, Alvarado and the other lessees executed an "Affidavit of
Waiver" granting Barredo the right to sell his house to any person who can
afford to purchase it. Barredo sold his house to Corpuz for P37,500.00 and
thus, Alvarado became the tenant of Corpuz.
In October 1991, Corpuz sent a written notice to Alvarado to vacate
the room which he was occupying because Corpuz’ children needed it for their
own use. Alvarado refusal to vacate the room prompted Corpuz to file an action
for unlawful detainer against the former with the MeTC of Manila for recovery
of possession of said room.
In his answer, Alvarado raised two major defenses: (1) the
"Affidavit of Waiver" executed between him and Barredo was a forgery;
and (2) the dispute was not referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa.
MTC ordered Alvarado to vacate the room. Alvarado appealed to the RTC.
RTC reversed MTC’s decision on the ground that the purported sale
between Corpuz and Barredo was the subject of a controversy pending before the
NHA which must be resolved first by said agency. The "Affidavit of
Waiver" was a forgery and dismissed the case for unlawful detainer. MR of
Corpuz was denied.
CA affirmed in its entirety the RTC decision. MR denied. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUES:
1.
WON Corpuz' unlawful detainer suit against Alvarado should be
suspended until the resolution of the NHA case impugning the sale of said
property
2. WON
the ejectment suit was not referred to the Lupon Tagapayapa as required by PD1508
HELD:
1. NO. MTC has
exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases. As
the law now stands, the only issue to be resolved in forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases is the physical or material possession over the real
property, that is, possession de
facto.
In Refugia v. CA, citing De
la Santa vs. CA, it was held that the inferior court may look into
the evidence of title or ownership and possession de jure insofar as said
evidence would indicate or determine the nature of possession. It cannot resolve
the issue of ownership by declaring who among the parties is the true and lawful
owner of the subject property because the resolution of said issue would effect
an adjudication on ownership which is not sanctioned in the summary action for
unlawful detainer.
The prevailing doctrine is that suits or
actions for the annulment of sale, title or document do not abate any ejectment
action respecting the same property. The underlying
reason is for the defendant not to trifle with the ejectment suit, which is
summary in nature, by the simple expedient of asserting ownership thereon.
Thus, the controversy pending before the NHA for the
annulment of the Deed of Sale and assailing the authenticity of the
"Affidavit of Joint Waiver" cannot deter the MTC from taking
cognizance of the ejectment suit merely for the purpose of determining who has
a better possessory right among the parties.
Alvarado is not without remedy. A judgment rendered in an
ejectment case shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting
title to the land or building nor shall it be conclusive as to the facts
therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of
action involving possession.
2. NO. This defense was only stated in a single general short
sentence in Alvarado's answer. In Dui
v. CA, SC held that failure of a party to
specifically allege the fact that there was no compliance with the Barangay
conciliation procedure constitutes a waiver of that defense. Alvarado's
answer stated no reason or explanation to support his allegation, which is
deemed a mere general averment. The proceeding outlined in PD1508 is not
a jurisdictional requirement and non-compliance therewith cannot affect the
jurisdiction which the lower court had already acquired over the subject matter
and the parties therein. Petition granted. MTC decision reinstated. (Carlito
D. Corpuz vs. CA and Juanito Alvarado,
GR No. 117005, June 19, 1997)
0
Comments
